Same as mentioned in here - England at 2.00, Spain 4.50, Italy 5.90 and Belgium 6.50 is what I remember from yesterday evening (can't access betting sites at work). Although like someone mentioned above, those are probably based on the chances to reach the final which is why England is heavily favoured. I'd expect (but that can of course change meanwhile) that the team coming out of our side of the bracket will be the bookies favourite in the final unless it's Switzerland. Spain might be 50/50.
England - Euro 2021 Discussion | FA chairman: Southgate to be offered new contract until Euro 2024
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I am not sure comparing a club side to international side is wise. The Bayern manager has months of pre season and a whole season to play the style they want.
Southgate had 2 weeks. It's not the same is it?
Secondly, England haven't beaten Germany in 55 years in a tournament.
Using your logic, Bayern is a terrible example to use because they have won trophies and big games in the recent past. Look at PSG, when they play clubs they cannot beat or get to the semi / final of a competition, they play counter attacking football.
It would be completely naive from Southgate to go all out attack.
I thought the same, surprised at the push back from my suggestion
Don't worry mate, I don't take offense or take things personally in real life so I won't on a forum either.
I think pre-tournament, being happy with a SF is more than fine but looking at how things pan out, there can be justification to feeling like it's a missed opportunity.
Let's say Man United in the UCL next season:
Right now, we've been shite in Europe so in happy if we get to QF/SF next season.
But if our opponent in the QF is Dynamo Kyiv and the SF will be one of Besiktas or Wolfsburg... Then yes, I would be a bit disappointed if we didn't beat these teams and get to the final considering United are better than them with the squad we have.
Yeah, i'd agree on that. Unless England (assuming they get to the final) come out of the quarters/semis looking really strong, then home advantage again might give them the edge with the bookies.
I'm surprised to see Belgium as the 'outsiders' to be honest. I'd have them as favourites to beat Italy.
Will depend heavily if De Bruyne and Hazard are ready to play.
Fair enough. What is the likelihood of them playing?
De Bruyne, very likely. Hazard, maybe 15-20 minutes if needed. But Carrasco can take his spot, De Bruyne is irreplaceable.
I would say you've misread the room quite badly if that's the impression you get.
Obviously you can. Well, you should be allowed to do so anyway, without being called a hater.
England will beat Ukraine.
After suffering setback against Iceland in the last Euro, the English players are very wary of complacency so they will try very hard to get the win. End result: Another England victory.
The point is not about country vs club football. The point is the style of play with respect to the quality of players.
You're talking as if its impossible to play high quality attacking football and still get results in country football. That's just untrue and there are loads of examples that show otherwise.
There's no excuse really. The reality is Southgate is a coward who plays negative football. That's the only reason.
Yeah, anything but attacking football is cowardly, I read it once in the Beano
Southgate plays cowardly football. That's not just down to him not playing attacking football, but also evident in his team selection, tactics and general in game management. If you are entertained by his brand of football or think he's getting the most out of England's obscene attacking talent, good for you, but I disagree completely.
You need to stop listening to Talksport
Whole generation of fans lost to thinking they need to hot-take everything like pound shop Adrian Durhams
No argument that he’s tactically conservative, he is.
“cowardly” is a nonsense. Especially when it comes to international football there are plenty conservative teams and coaches over the years, some very successful.
Tactical caution is actually appreciated by some people. The idea there’s only one way to play football is entitled and ignorant and usually disseminated by people who say things like ‘anti-football’ and ‘isn’t Lee Hurst funny’
“cowardly” is a nonsense. Especially when it comes to international football there are plenty conservative teams and coaches over the years, some very successful.
Tactical caution is actually appreciated by some people. The idea there’s only one way to play football is entitled and ignorant and usually disseminated by people who say things like ‘anti-football’ and ‘isn’t Lee Hurst funny’
So by the sounds of it you would rate it in order of difficulty (hardest first)
Belgium
Italy
Spain
Cowardly. Sound bite of the moment. Have an original thought.
Tactically conservative when you have a extremely talented attack and midfield is cowardly. Playing Trippier at left back when you have Shaw and Chilwell is cowardly. If this was the England squad of 2014, I wouldnt have called the same football cowardly.
Saying Mourinho plays negative football isnt original either. Its right though
I'm not English though wife and her family are, and I know quite a few English fans.
I don't think that's the case (though some hyperbole in the media / on social media may make it appear the case).
I think it's that beating Germany in a knockout means more than beating other teams in a knockout. I don't think most fans are going "we beat Germany, who cares now" more "we won AND it was against Germany"
Tactically conservative when you have a extremely talented attack and midfield is cowardly. Playing Trippier at left back when you have Shaw and Chilwell is cowardly. If this was the England squad of 2014, I wouldnt have called the same football cowardly.
Saying Mourinho plays negative football isnt original either. Its right though
coward or cowardly is an emotive word, and frankly is also complete BS. Southgate has been proven right so far with his tactics.
he’s done something other England Managers have failed to do, win the first game of the tournament and beat Germany or indeed any top side in 90 mins in a knockout game.
This was the first time in 53 years that England had won a Euros knockout tie within the 90 minutes. Let that sink in.
That's the history Southgate is working against. Pragmatism was definitely the sensible approach.
We've got a top class attack that's always liable to score a goal, especially in later rounds when the opposition needs to attack. And setting up to congest the middle is always liable to lead to a clean sheet, especially when you've got an aerial presence as dominant as Maguire.
It's just maths. 1-0 in every game would give England their best tournament result in over half a century.
That's the history Southgate is working against. Pragmatism was definitely the sensible approach.
We've got a top class attack that's always liable to score a goal, especially in later rounds when the opposition needs to attack. And setting up to congest the middle is always liable to lead to a clean sheet, especially when you've got an aerial presence as dominant as Maguire.
It's just maths. 1-0 in every game would give England their best tournament result in over half a century.
Southgates team selections have been extremely brave. Trippier at LB in the first game. Saka over the others yesterday. These are very hard questions to answer in a post match presser after a loss. He'd lose most of the fans in an instant and his reputation as a manager would be severely damaged.
His tactics are another, longer conversation, but for me anyone calling him a coward is not giving him enough credit.
His tactics are another, longer conversation, but for me anyone calling him a coward is not giving him enough credit.
Southgate sure does play conservative football but I think a certain OGS's approach is even more cowardly.
Southgate is less cowardly than Diego Simeone.
Rabiot played pretty well against Switzerland, blaming him seems pretty biased.
All France needed was Pogba not losing the ball in the 90 minute in the middle, and they would have won.Simple as that.
Everyone who is not a United fan knows that Pogba fecked up the qualification for France, and he should take the blame, because even with Mbappé underperforming they should have beaten Switzerland 3-2.
France it's OK, winning a World Cup it's much harder than winning an Euro.And they should have won the Euro 2016, but the hit on the post in the last minute denied them the trophy.
I'd take winning a World Cup, and getting eliminated in the next Euro group stage.
Greece and Denmark won the Euro, and never were close to win a WC, not even once.
it's funny how people talk as if winning a WC doesn't mean much... only 8 teams, out of the 60 or more that participated in WC, have won the tournament.
If you're not Brazil, Germany or Italy it's pretty damn hard to win a world cup. Just reaching a final is special. Croatia was the first true underdog to reach the final since 1962.
To be fair in a knockout tournament often times pragmatic tactics work better.
But when i saw that line up against Germany I didnt think England would win. Maybe its just me and my trauma because of Moyes and Jose.
But when i saw that line up against Germany I didnt think England would win. Maybe its just me and my trauma because of Moyes and Jose.
Last edited:
Irrelevant to what I was saying.
Ehh, this is not about Ole, and what Ole does doesnt change anything about Southgate.
Last edited:
I don't understand why conservative tactical set up is sneered in tournament football. They play once in 4 years, all that matters is winning doesn't matter if it's by playing like Brazilian team or Greece team.
If this was club football then yeah, it's easy to see but with National team it shouldn't matter.
If this was club football then yeah, it's easy to see but with National team it shouldn't matter.
Ole has never played 7 defenders in a game. Give it a rest.
Yes. Nobody able to mould a team into winning machine without proper balance even in club football. National teams are totally different.
You can plan all you could with players but end of the day if player get injured or went completely out of form the plan will be good only on paper but not on the field.
Southgate played well his cards till now. He didn't need to use his attacking wealth at his disposal until now. By doing so he won first knock out game in euros after long long time and also won against germany after 1966 in competitive tournament football since 1966.
Kudos to him for not bucking under pressure from media.
7 defenders? Huh?
Southgate used his wingbacks as attackers more than enough to make a working attacking unit. That's all he need to do and he did very well. It's not personal who played but how they played.
Shaw more played like attacker in Southgate system than Pogba for united in ogs system when he played in two man midfield.Joined attack,do combination of short passes in attacking third,provide attacking outlet and give key passes to score.
And for your specific 7 defender question psg away this season he played 7 defenders and three attackers combination to win the game. And he fairly won it with his fantastic tactical set up.
Last edited:
Yeah, as neutrals we want free flowing attacking game, with flair players playing most mins but its easy to see why Southgate went or will go with cautious approach. It's also good to have options on the bench. England problem area is their midfield, they really lack options. So playing Rice-Philips isn't a bad idea, ideally Henderson with full fitness would have played but he has missed many months, so England can't take the risk to start him.
I understand the criticism of Southgates reluctance to use more of our attacking options, but I think it's overstated.
It's not like he's leaving out prime Rooney, Beckham, Owen, Gerrard etc. He's leaving out predominantly young players who have huge potential but aren't the finished article just yet. It's no wonder that the two attackers he puts most faith in are the two most experienced in Sterling and Kane. The others, Foden, Sancho, Saka, Rashford and Mount arent at that level yet despite the potential. The exception may be Grealish, who I would like to see start, but then he's playing for Villa and has no experience of European football, nor competing for a side competing for honours, and very little experience at international level.
Also given knockout games can be 120 minutes of football, plus 5 subs allowed, too much emphasis is given to who starts sometimes.
It's not like he's leaving out prime Rooney, Beckham, Owen, Gerrard etc. He's leaving out predominantly young players who have huge potential but aren't the finished article just yet. It's no wonder that the two attackers he puts most faith in are the two most experienced in Sterling and Kane. The others, Foden, Sancho, Saka, Rashford and Mount arent at that level yet despite the potential. The exception may be Grealish, who I would like to see start, but then he's playing for Villa and has no experience of European football, nor competing for a side competing for honours, and very little experience at international level.
Also given knockout games can be 120 minutes of football, plus 5 subs allowed, too much emphasis is given to who starts sometimes.
Give it a rest ffs, this isn't Ole thread. So what if the same post was posted by City fan?
Pickford, Shaw, Maguire, Stones, Walker, Trippier, Rice and Phillips are all part of the defense first and foremost.